Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis

Influence of neoadjuvant treatment strategy on perioperative outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer facilitates tumour downstaging and complete pathological response (pCR). The goal of neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (total neoadjuvant chemotherapy, TNT) is to further improve local and systemic control. While some patients forgo surgery, total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the standard of care. While TNT appears to be noninferior to nCRT with respect to short-term oncological outcomes few data exist on perioperative outcomes. Perioperative morbidity including anastomotic leaks is associated with a negative effect on oncological outcomes, probably due to a delay in proceeding to adjuvant therapy. Thus, we aimed to compare conversion rates, rates of sphincter-preserving surgery and anastomosis formation rates in patients undergoing rectal resection after either TNT or standard nCRT.

METHODS

An institutional colorectal oncology database was searched from January 2018 to July 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised patients with histologically confirmed rectal cancer who had undergone neoadjuvant therapy and TME. Exclusion criteria comprised patients with a noncolorectal primary, those operated on emergently or who had local excision only. Outcomes evaluated included rates of conversion to open, sphincter-preserving surgery, anastomosis formation and anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were eligible for inclusion (60 with standard nCRT, 59 with TNT). There were no differences in rates of sphincter preservation or primary anastomosis formation between the groups. However, a significant increase in conversion to open (p = 0.03) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03) was observed in the TNT cohort.

CONCLUSION

In this series TNT appears to be associated with higher rates of conversion to open surgery and higher anastomotic leak rates. While larger studies will be required to confirm these findings, these factors should be considered alongside oncological benefits when selecting treatment strategies.

Perioperative outcomes for single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery: a comparative analysis in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) may offer improved cosmesis, reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery than conventional platforms, but widespread implementation was limited by technical demands. A single-port robotic platform was recently introduced, with components that further enhance SILS benefits without the technical challenges. No study to date has compared the two platforms to validate benefits. Our goal was to compare outcomes of SP robotics and SILS in colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

A prospective cancer registry was reviewed for CRC patients undergoing curative resection through a SILS or SP robotic approach from 2010 to 2022. Patient and cancer demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for baseline characteristics. The main outcome measures were complications, operative time, and oncologic quality measures.

RESULTS

Matching resulted 50 SP robotic and 50 SILS patients. Cohorts were well matched in all demographics, but SP robotic rectal cancer cases were significantly closer to the anorectal ring than SILS (1.8 cm vs. 3.4 cm, p = 0.018). SP robotic and SILS platforms had similar operative times. Intraoperative conversions was comparable, but more SILS cases required additional ports to be placed (p = 0.040). The intraoperative complications rate, complete total mesorectal excision rates, and lymph node yield were not statistically significantly different. There were no positive margins in either group. Postoperatively, groups had analogous day of return of bowel function, comparable morbidity, and discharge destination. There was no mortality in either group. The length of stay was significantly shorter with SP robotics than SILS (mean 4.135 vs. 5.282 days, median 4 (2-8) vs. 5 (2-14) days; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port robotics provided high quality oncologic surgery, adding the technical benefits of robotics to clinical and cosmetic benefits of single-port surgery. There were comparable operative time, complication rates, and oncologic outcomes in CRC cases, with shorter hospital stays with SP robotics. This early data is encouraging for expansion SP robotic technology.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Robotic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer: Review of the current literature

With an ageing global population, we will see an increasing number of elderly patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) requiring surgery. However, it should be recognized that the elderly are a heterogenous group, with varying physiological and functional status. While traditionally viewed to be associated with frailty, comorbidities, and a higher risk of post operative morbidity, the advancements in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and improvements in perioperative care have allowed CRC surgery to be safe and feasible in the elderly - chronological age alone should therefore not strictly be an exclusion criterion for curative surgery. However, as a form of MIS, laparoscopic assisted colorectal surgery (LACS) has the inherent disadvantages of: (1) Dependence on a trained assistant for retraction and laparoscope control; (2) The loss of wristed movement with reduced dexterity and suboptimal ergonomics; (3) A lack of intuitive movement due to the levering effect of trocars; and (4) An amplification of physiological tremors. Representing a technical evolution of LACS, robotic assisted colorectal surgery was introduced to overcome these limitations. In this minireview, we examine the evidence for robotic surgery in the elderly with CRC.

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

CONCLUSION

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer: Real-World Experience over 8 Years of Multiple Institutions with High-Volume Robotic-Assisted Surgery

Simple Summary

The aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RRS) in hospitals with a high-volume of robotic-assisted surgeries. This study enrolled patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing RRS from three high-volume institutions from December 2011 to June 2020. Compared with other studies, our results revealed the equivalent or superior perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes. Hence, RRS is an effective, safe, and feasible technique for patients with rectal cancers in high-volume hospitals.

Abstract

The perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RRS) are unclear. This retrospective observational study enrolled patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing RRS from three high-volume institutions in Taiwan. Of the 605 enrolled patients, 301 (49.75%), 176 (29.09%), and 116 (19.17%) had lower, middle, and upper rectal cancers, respectively. Low anterior resection (377, 62.31%) was the most frequent surgical procedure. Intraoperative blood transfusion was performed in 10 patients (2%). The surgery was converted to an open one for one patient (0.2%), and ten (1.7%) patients underwent reoperation. The overall complication rate was 14.5%, including 3% from anastomosis leakage. No deaths occurred during surgery and within 30 days postoperatively. The positive rates of distal resection margin and circumferential resection margin were observed in 21 (3.5%) and 30 (5.0%) patients, respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates for patients with stage I–III rectal cancer were 91.1% and 86.3%, respectively. This is the first multi-institutional study in Taiwan with 605 patients from three high-volume hospitals. The overall surgical and oncological outcomes were equivalent or superior to those estimated in other studies. Hence, RRS is an effective and safe technique for rectal resection in high-volume hospitals.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer.

METHODS

From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41-4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57-5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34-17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362).

CONCLUSION

Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure.